Panasonic DMZ-FZ1000 verses Olympus OM-D EM-5 with kit lenses for travel

[tsinsf]

I have the Olympus OM-D EM-5 and the 12-50 and 40-150 kit lenses which I use for travel. In spite of the great camera reviews, I've been less than thrilled with the image quality and I'm guessing it's because of the low quality lenses. I have an upcoming hiking trip to New Zealand and I'm thinking of renting the Panasonic DMZ-FZ1000 with built in 25-400mm lens equivalent. I'm wondering if the image quality of the Panasonic would be much better than the Olympus with the cheap kit lenses? I'd rent the Olympic Pro lenses but the cost for three weeks is prohibitive. Your thoughts, and any other suggestions would be appreciated. My "real" camera is a Canon 5d Mark ii and a bunch of L lenses, which are just too big and heavy to hike with.

[maddogmurph]

This might be better suited to the "Equipment" forums.

Ultralight solution:

1. RX100 (this is your best Ultralight option and you can pick one up for $300 - Great backup if nothing else)
2. Fuji XT1 (This is probably your best choice - but the IQ will not match your mark ii)
3. Buy the Lenses you need for your Olympus (I've heard it's a good system, maybe you haven't realized it's potential)
4. Bring your Cannon, and one 55mm Lens, and stitch (this is your best IQ option)

I struggle with this exact problem every time I go out.  I'm an ultra lighter.  Frankly it's really quite sad to spend thousands of dollars getting your gear below 10LB base weight for a week long trip only to slam 10LBs of camera gear into it...

[xocet]

There's nothing particularly wrong with those kit lenses, the main negatives being that they are fairly slow.  The 12-50 is weather resistant.

Now, what to recommend would depend on what walk/tramp/hike you are intending on doing.  I'd suggest that the longer lens will be rarely, if ever used (so pack it just in case, but no need to rent a better one).  Were it me, I'd take/get one or two primes.  Going ultra light, the Olympus 17mm or Panasonic 20mm would serve for most situations.  Add in the Olympus f1.8 45mm for something a bit longer.  If you want a little wider, either stitch, or consider the tiny f2.5 28mm Panasonic.  Three of them would take up about as much room and weight as a zoom.

Your other option is to take the 5D with a decent 35mm or 50mm prime, or even the 40mm pancake.

Whichever option you take, a monopod, which can double as a walking stick, would be very useful.

I'd hesitate to take something unfamiliar on a trip.

[spidermike]

I  know everyone has their own standards on what constitutes acceptable image quality but I would not call those two zooms 'low quality'. I doubt the Panasonic (or any fixed-lens zoom compact) would be signifcantly any better. But it all depends what you want to do with the mages: viewin gon screen I doubt you will tell the difference, blow to 20x18 then the E-M5. And even then you need to develop your own workflow if the 5DII is your gold standard - he fact that many published pros are moving to Olympus suggests what it is really capable of.

I am increasingly aiming at four primes: panasonic 14mm and 20mm, Olympus 45mm f1.8 and Sigma ART 60mm f2.8. I reckon I can crop each of them by 50% (area) and still be highly acceptable at A3 print size.

My choice for zooms would be the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 and the Panasonic 35-100 (either version depending on if you need f2..
If you look up David Thorpe on youtube he does some very good reviews of a lot of MFT gear - he is been a pro photographer all his life and looks at the equipment from a practical functional viewpoint not a pixel-peeping perfectionist. I find it invaluable when I start to lost sight of what I am actually wanting.

FWIW my Canon sits at home most times nowadays being reserved for wildlife and the big lenses. But one difference I find between the Canon and E-M5 is that for the latter the highlights go too 'crunchy' very quickly for my liking and with the shadow recovery being so good on the Olympus I can play safe and keep the highlights in bounds.

[Walker Holland]

On my ultralight 8 days walk in the Andorra mountains (Spain) sept 2014, I started with a backpack of 17 kg including food for 7 days. Thats why I only used my iphone 4s for photo and video. Switched it on and off to save the battery. It resulted in only a few minutes of video and 25 pictures. The next ultralight walk goes to Scotland. Than I take my Sony GW77 with me. Weighs less than 8 ounces with the battery installed. Good for 4 hours of video. The video quality is more than sufficient for HD, very good stabilization to and waterproof! My iphone stays home and instead I take a cheap lightweight phone with me.

[NancyP]

Don't forget the Fabulous Forty, Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake, 135 grams. If you are a standard FL user, this is equal in image quality to most standard lenses (not the Otus or Sigma Art, obviously), and the cost new is $150.00 to $200.00. Manual focus is a PITA, but can be done. AF is fine. Of course it isn't a zoom. The old 24-105 f/4L IS is the classic full frame travel lens.

[luxborealis]

I must admit to feeling the same way as the OP at times. I just came back from Galaoagos and while one would would think that the D800 would be ideal, travelling with 23 students severely curtailed my photography as I knew it would. I found the weight of carrying it plus a couple of zooms (and all the paraphernalia needed to keep 23 students safe et. Al.) and having to change lenses back and forth a pain.

But having something like the FZ-1000 or the Sony RX-10 might just the way to match a lighter, more convenient, quick to use camera with an IQ that more closely matches my expectations and my style of photography. I must look into both of them. Perhaps there'll be an RX-20 by the time I do a trip like that again.

I started into the digital world with a 5mp Minolta D7i with a built in 28-200mm lens and I still have 2 16x20s up on the wall from it. The newer technology FZ-1000 and RX-10 must be significantly better.